Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Contains threads on British Army equipment of the past, present and future.
RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by RunningStrong »

RetroSicotte wrote:
ArmChairCivvy wrote:
RunningStrong wrote: I'd hardly say that costing 2-3x the unit cost of JLTV, plus increased spares costs, is a minor price to pay for a UK-manufactured vehicle.
You have the exact unit prices for an unreleased deal? I wouldn't give numerical estimates until we know.
.
I've seen RoMs, yes.

I think you're completely overblowing the situation. What prior experience did Force Protection Europe have prior to Foxhound? (A limited reachback to US Corp HQ?).

The heavy work may not be running, but this isn't ship building and te engineering development is still strong.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

RunningStrong wrote:I think you're completely overblowing the situation. What prior experience did Force Protection Europe have prior to Foxhound? (A limited reachback to US Corp HQ?).
I agree, the design was a joint effort by many qualified companies, but the result was so good (British standards, once again) that it can't compete in the "mass" market.
- the latest SDSR said something about regaining combat mass? Which means that unit costs will matter

Supacat has great internal design capability, but at times had to have all of the production done by a contracred party. A situation for which a better balance has been sought lately:
"Towards the end of 2014, the highly successful design engineering firm, Supacat Group, acquired heavy fabrication and machining specialist, Blackhill Engineering Services Ltd, a business established in the 1950s operating from Blackhill Quarry, Woodbury near Exeter.

Blackhill originally serviced the quarry industry, providing an engineering centre for English China Clays (Quarries Division), designing, fabricating and installing a variety of heavy duty engineering solutions. It was taken into private ownership in 1995 and began to provide bespoke engineering services to other sectors as the quarry sector retrenched.

Few, if any, engineering competitors can match Blackhill’s facilities and ability to handle very big projects. It currently operates from four workshops covering 28,000 sq ft divided between fabrication, assembly and large and small machine shops, with the capability of lifting 60 tons on site."
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Gabriele »

Foxhound was never an option for MRV-P. At one million pounds a copy and class 4 protection, it is well above and beyond the budget and requirement. The simpler steel hulled variant might go closer to the desired pricetag, but probably not enough by far.

Further Foxhound should be procured, but only for fire line jobs. Arguably, the WMIK variant should replace Jackal in the long term (no money). The Foxhound WMIK variant should first of all replace the Land Rover RWIMIK+ in the Light Mechanised formations. It is absurd to have the infantry mounted into Foxhound but the machine guns, GMG, Javelin and recce mounted in Land Rovers offering far inferior protection.

MRV-P should eventually replace the less-armored pieces: Husky, Panther. But even if this becomes the plan (and i really hope it does, the army cannot continue to plan on a patchwork of so many vehicle types, it is a nightmare), it will take years to sort out the mess.

I'm also puzzled by the delay inflicted to Group 3, which i believe is the Lightweight Protected Recovery vehicle. It is arguably a priority, considering that there is nothing between the handful of Husky modified by the REME in house and the huge MAN Wrecker. Everyone from Royal Marines and PARA to Light Cavalry and Light Mechanised Infantry battalions have a clear requirement for a protected and reasonably sized recovery vehicle to support Jackal, Foxhound, MRV-P itself, Husky and Panther...
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
shark bait
Senior Member
Posts: 6427
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:18
Pitcairn Island

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by shark bait »

Reducing types need to be a priority for the Army, Iraq created a need for a mess of UOR vehicles, and now that needs to be reduced into a sustainable inventory.

Ideally each brigade would be based around a single platform, but that does seem unlikely given the budget pressures, perhaps a 2 tier system within each brigade is more sensible.
  • An MBT and ASCOD variants within the armoured brigades
  • The Patria AMV and perhaps that new french wheeled armour for the strike brigades
  • And for the light forces JLTV and Foxhound variants.
Sound reasonable?
@LandSharkUK

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Gabriele »

More or less. JLTV is only a "small" vehicle, however after the variants were cut down to just 2. And in fact the british army seems to want it only as Land Rover replacement, effectively: it covers the Group 1 requirement for a 4 seat general purpose vehicle.

That leaves uncovered needs for long-base vehicles, or even a 6x6 vehicle in a number of roles (think as a protected replacement for Pinzgauer in artillery towing, air defence detachment and other roles). And in fact the army is looking at long or 6x6 vehicles with MRV-P Group 2.

Foxhound is "over and above", in a way, because it is a light "combat" vehicle offering very high level of protection, twice as demanding.

A pretty good example of what the MRV-P programme is trying to be (but failing, for a variety of reasons) is given by the italian army's own plan for light / low-medium vehicles: it has purchased well over 1700 Iveco LMV Lince 4x4 (lynx) (Panther in the british army command and liaison incarnation) (including Anti Tank, general purpose, recce, ambulance variants, short and long wheelbases) and is working to acquire a few hundred VTMM "Orso" (bear), a larger vehicle, for engineer, route clearance, ambulance, gun towing and other roles.
That's Group 1 and Group 2 to you.
Only with more realistic numbers (at least on the LMV side, the Orso purchases are unfortunately struggling to take off due to money) and with less vehicle types involved.

What leaves me wondering is how the US Army will do without a "long" variant of the JLTV. They will have their own problems, surely. For example, now they are planning to use it for the recce teams, and while putting the 30mm gun on it is not an issue, it does not carry the desired number of soldiers (6).
I think more JLTV variants will re-emerge over time as the US Army realizes it can't quite do all it wants with just the current two. But when, and where will the british programme stand by then...?
For once, it almost makes me wish for delays, because if a suitable JLTV variant appeared in the next few years, the whole programme would suddenly become a lot less messy.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by RunningStrong »

Gabriele wrote: MRV-P should eventually replace the less-armored pieces: Husky, Panther. But even if this becomes the plan (and i really hope it does, the army cannot continue to plan on a patchwork of so many vehicle types, it is a nightmare), it will take years to sort out the mess.
Whole heartedly agree. But with Panther OoS supposedly 2037 I unfortunately don't think that will happen.
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2015/07/b ... ice-dates/

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Gabriele »

That's why i said earlier that MRV-P at the moment has not a real long term plan. If the army cannot purchase enough to give it a meaning, it should probably spend the money elsewhere. There are more than enough different vehicle types in service as is...

Anyway, the out of service dates given by the army this far are simply mental. Foxhound gone in 2024 while Panther stays until 2037...? How can they possibly explain that, among all pearls?
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Gabriele wrote:Arguably, the WMIK variant should replace Jackal in the long term (no money). The Foxhound WMIK variant should first of all replace the Land Rover RWIMIK+ in the Light Mechanised formations. It is absurd to have the infantry mounted into Foxhound but the machine guns, GMG, Javelin and recce mounted in Land Rovers offering far inferior protection
I agree, exc. for the first sentence.
Gabriele wrote:Anyway, the out of service dates given by the army this far are simply mental. Foxhound gone in 2024 while Panther stays until 2037...? How can they possibly explain that, among all pearls?
As you say, go figure??
"Foxhound gone in 2024 "
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by arfah »

..........
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

RunningStrong
Senior Member
Posts: 1304
Joined: 06 May 2015, 20:52

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by RunningStrong »

Gabriele wrote: Anyway, the out of service dates given by the army this far are simply mental. Foxhound gone in 2024 while Panther stays until 2037...? How can they possibly explain that, among all pearls?
Foxhound was a UOR and wouldn't have been qualified to the same rigours as normally expected, which in Land is usually accelerated life testing equivalent of around 30 years in service.

In reality it has very little bearing.

User avatar
Gabriele
Senior Member
Posts: 1998
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 18:53
Contact:
Italy

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Gabriele »

But Foxhound ceased to be a UOR soon afterwards. I expect those absurd OSD projections to change completely, and the only surprise is seeing it hasn't happened yet.
You might also know me as Liger30, from that great forum than MP.net was.

Arma Pacis Fulcra.
Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum

Ron5
Donator
Posts: 7245
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:42
United States of America

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Ron5 »

I can't help but wonder if the Foxhound is as popular with the army as with the posters here.

arfah
Senior Member
Posts: 2173
Joined: 30 Apr 2015, 19:02
Niue

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by arfah »

..........
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Impressive.. does it match any of our rqrmnts categories?
- for the armoured ambulance, I guess it is too small?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by marktigger »

ArmChairCivvy wrote: - for the armoured ambulance, I guess it is too small?
Yeap something like the SISU would be better in that role for 1st - 2nd line transport then unarmoured wheeled could be used going further back like pinzgauer

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

marktigger wrote:Yeap something like the SISU
I wonder which one you mean?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

marktigger
Senior Member
Posts: 4640
Joined: 01 May 2015, 10:22
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by marktigger »

Patria AMV or something of that size especially the load area you need good space to work in and storage light etc in order to maintain a casualty in transit!

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

OK. but that would be more like the 6x6 AMV (that no one has ordered yet)... easy to add the height (Command model has it already).

Just that Patria is a different producer fro Sisu (who also make a lot of defence related products, up to 10x10).
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

A good choice, now then:
The second part of the MRV-P requirement — a larger troop carrier and a battlefield ambulance variant — is being competed by the British
- we know the entrants
- any guesses/ preferences?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by dmereifield »

Does anyone know how many of these we are looking to purchase? And presumably it's 100% US built and using US components (I.e. Nothing for UK plc in this one)?

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Frenchie »

The French army needs a light version (about 12 tonnes) of the VBMR, it will be a vehicle to choose between the Bastion HM from RTD, the Bushmaster from Thales and a 4x4 version of the Titus from Nexter.
This concerns a need for paratroopers and alpine brigades, for a rapid projection of forces in case of emergency.
I don't understand in what context will be used the MRV-P, I don't understand the purpose :?:

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Hi Frenchie,

The ACMAT Bastion Patsas, after the first minute of the line up building, to me looks like the French Foxhound; has it been ordered yet (and if so, for what use)?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Frenchie
Member
Posts: 619
Joined: 07 Nov 2016, 15:01
France

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by Frenchie »

Hi ACC,

The Bastion HM is not yet ordered, but in my opinion this will be the next light VBMR that will serve for paratroopers.

The new information I can give is that RTD will deliver 202 vehicles based on the Sherpa, this will be the heavy version of special forces vehicles (PLFS). The 1st RPIMa had tried its basic version and it helped to improve it. It has wider tires, better mine protection and a more powerful engine than the basic Sherpa.

Image

241 light special forces vehicles (VLFS) will be delivered from 2018, whose mass should fluctuate between 3.5 and 4 tons. This will be a derivative of the Panhard PVP. It's the little thing to the left of the minister :lol:

Image

dmereifield
Senior Member
Posts: 2762
Joined: 03 Aug 2016, 20:29
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by dmereifield »

arfah wrote:
dmereifield wrote:Does anyone know how many of these we are looking to purchase?
400... ish.
Thanks. I thought it was going to be more than that

User avatar
ArmChairCivvy
Senior Member
Posts: 16312
Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
United Kingdom

Re: Multi Role Vehicle – Protected - MRV(P)

Post by ArmChairCivvy »

Well, the protected mobility prgrm aims to get all UORred vehicles out of service by 2030 (abt) so it could well be more
- also Foxhound and Panther are covered, even though they did not come in as UOR items, and might have slightly later ISDs

The numbers pale in comparison with the non-protected but otherwise similar vehicles, which numbered 6000plus when the MRV(P) prgrm was started. Lots has happened in-between, though:
"terms of reference for Army 2020 were;

To develop and recommend options, starting from first principles, for the design, structure, capabilities and capacities of an integrated Army of 2020 – that importantly – would be designed to cost and deliver the 20 per cent saving required.

In charge of the study to decide how to get from A to B was Lt General Nick Carter, Director General Land Warfare."

Cutting down from 120k to 82k is more than 20%, but
- Reserves being boosted costs some, too. especially when the stated aim was (is?) for them to have the same (std of) kit as the Regulars, for the pairing of units to work
- The Gurkhas are not included in the often quoted Regular numbers and The Bde (of) is being rebuilt after initially getting the same "treatment". The RM are not "army regulars" either.
- and the "hollow middle" between heavy and light is being filled, for which the average cost of vehicle (with the notable exception of Ajax) should be well down from those required to rejuvenate the heavy formations - the latter being effectively "life extended" rather than renewed, under the cost constraints.

So, the MRV(P) decision, to me at least, is very welcome; now let us get on with the MIV as enough of speccing, evaluation and testing has been done.
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)

Post Reply